1. Not an NRA member, so I doubt writing from me would help.

The Democrats have chosen to be for stringent laws and regulations on guns. Obama is a Democrat from a major urban center, so having an organization that is against stringent laws and regulations on guns wanting him out of office is perfectly normal and expected.

2. My question is...

How did you get your magazine before I did? Also I tend to skip the political part of the American Rifleman, it's basically run by the NRA-ILA. Oh how I love their junk mail, I really should post some, it's funny as hell. I like the magazine for the gun reviews and the ballistics tests. Like last month's test of Horandy's Critical Defense ammo. After you been reading gun sites/magazine for a few decades you learn to tune out the politics of it.

4. No basically about it, it's the NRA-ILA's magazine.

If you payed separately for your subscription from your membership, they would be able to use that money for the ILA's lobbying.

In 2010, the ILA threw a lot of pro-gun Democrats at the state level under the bus in favor of untested Republicans. At the ILA 'housewarming' I attended, I felt like I was at a Tea Party rally. Their claims of 'bi-partisanship' ring hollow for me.

18. Not so much.

I've flipped through it a bit on the newsstand every now and then. I do agree that the articles I have read were good, just not enough to buy it. If they put out an annual like Shotgun Times does I'd buy that.

52. lol

3. Thankfully, there are alternatives to the NRA.

Second Amendment Foundation - www.saf.org -litigate to keep the right to bear arms as available as possible
The Liberal Gun Club - www.theliberalgunclub.org - group to provide Liberal gun owners a place to meet and share the kind of knowledge and training that were the NRA's roots before they started the NRA-ILA lobby group
Gun Owners' Caucuses of the Democratic Party - aligned state Caucuses that are working to increase the exposure of Democrat candidates who are not anti-gun in an effort to stop gun restriction laws from being passed.

While President Obama's stance on several issues are 180 degrees from Candidate Obama's back in 2008, I personally think he is less of a threat to our gun rights than Romney, who saw a permanent 'Assault Weapons' Ban go into effect in MA due to his signature. He could have vetoed it, but he chose to sign it.

10. It's simply

A lesser of two evils. I disagree with a lot of what this administration has done, but given the alternative I want him to get a 2nd term. If he touches that 3rd rail of gun control, don't be surprised when I don't defend the democrats in the subsequent elections. As I said before, I'm a principled man and a liberal... I don't carry water for anyone including the democratic party.

36. Of course you can be a gun owning Obama supporter. ...

I am an NRA member and have enjoyed target shooting for over 40 years and also have a concealed carry permit.

I voted for Obama in the last election and will again in this one. Obama has basically been very friendly to gun owners in his first term and even received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign. I do realize that some very prominent Democrats wish for draconian gun control but lack support from other Democrats. The majority of the Democrats that I can vote for in local, state and congressional election are strong supporters of gun rights and have high ratings from the NRA.

I have absolutely no idea of who Romney is or what he actually stands for.

Mitt Romney, if elected, would be in our top three wealthiest presidents but to me that doesn't disqualify him. My problem with Mitt is that he has been on every side of every issue at some time during his political career. He is not merely a waffler but is in fact a shape shifter. Currently he is pretending to be very conservative. Once in office who knows what he will support? I don't always agree with every issue that a candidate supports but I do insist that I know exactly what their position is.

As far as the gun rights issue I have confidence that Obama is not going to suddenly change in his second term and try to ban and confiscate all firearms. I actually agree with many of his ideas on improving the gun laws in our nation although he hasn't been real vocal on this topic.

I feel the Romney will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if he perceives a political advantage. Therefore he poses a far greater threat to gun rights than Obama and the Democrats do. In fact, I will go so far as to state that if your most important political issue is much stronger or draconian gun control, you might consider voting for Romney.

I simply can't vote for Romney as he talks out of both sides of his mouth. I can also add that while I have no problem with his being rich, I feel he is totally out of touch with the reality of the struggle that most people face today in this nation. I feel he looks down on poorer people and blames them for the fact that they are not wealthy.

63. It's clear to me they aren't basing that on gun policy.

I know this because they are always speculating about what he'll do next term, because they have nothing to talk about in re his first term. And they sometimes drop the gun mask and make broader comments about Obama being against our "way of life." And backing Mitt? As if he wasn't as, if not more, for gun control than Obama ever was? AFAIC they're a bunch of RWers who pretend they're against him on guns but the pretense is rice-paper thin.

11. Not sure I'll write to an organization of which I am not a member...

but I am heartened to see Outdoor Life (the more conservative of the big "hook & bullet" mags, along with Field & Stream) take note of the ambivalence of pro-hunting/fishing organizations with regard supporting Romney, and with voting straight-ticket for one party or the other. Noted as "bad guys" in the latest issue are two GOPers who "went over" to the anti-hunting side of pending anti-hunting legislation. Seems they got sizeable cash contributions from HSUS, which has set up shop in California in hopes of making it the bellweather non-hunting state.

35. I have a similar take on F&S as well...

OL has more content on the gun-control issue (the October, 2012 issue has a self-defense w/ handgun article). But they aren't as overboard as the strictly gun aficianado press. F&S has regular pieces on industry threats to wildlife/hunting/fishing. The thing that keeps both (and other) outdoor publications in line are groups like Trout Unlimited and some hunting organizations which object to mining and drilling on hunting lands. Petersen's Hunting is much more conservative, saving its vitriole for anti-hunting groups. I like the much more expensive Gray's Sporting Journal (bi-monthly). Great articles on hunting, fishing, good fiction, photo essays, book reviews, art criticism -- even a poem. On slick card stock. Seems they are into hard copy for the long haul, even selling old-type magazine volume binders.

IMO, the biggest problem with the politics of outdoor sports/conservation is the split promulgated by "animal rights" advocates and gun-control advocates. This has been seriously damaging, wrenching apart groups who at least cooperated with each other in the past. I've read issues of the Big Two from the 60s, and there was little mention of liberal-conservative dichotemies, and environmental articles were not met with regular derision.

Good hearing from you. Back in action after my 'puter bombed in March. I even got a smart phone! (I was "SteveM" or "SteveW" since 2006.)

41. Ah, excellent - good to see you back! Does that mean you're just now making

the DU3 transition?

I tend to agree with you about the sporting/conservation splits - I don't hunt (except with a speargun) but I do fish, backpack, and otherwise spend a lot of my recreation time outdoors. It just seems so obvious that environmentalists, wilderness users of all stripes, plus farmers/ranchers are natural allies on a lot of topics, enough to outweigh the differences. With more people living in urban and suburban setting, and fewer people using the wilderness, it seems like those alliances are increasingly important if we want to protect what we have. Unfortunately, that's not the general trend in political interactions.

37. I have old hunting/fishing mags from the 60s. The NRA was different...

mentioning gun law bulletins as just one of its services when you joined. Their ads were a few column inches in the back. Now, you see full page(s) color boomers in hook-n-bullet mags and other outlets.

34. They must have been the only three.

43. In 2010 the NRA endorsed 14 incumbent House Democrats over Republican challengers

But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given.

The Washington Post reports the NRA's policy in recent years is to support incumbents when their positions on gun rights are similar to the NRA's and their challengers.

31. I know

39. Yep. No reason why there shouldn't be at least one or two Democrats...

from North Central Florida elected to Congress. The GOPers have branded themselves as pro-gun, pro-hunting and the Democrats arer still playing footsy with animal rights and gun-control groups. Gun-control is an elitist outlook, and the party apparatus is top-heavy with that ideology, preserving the doctrine in the face, IMO, of general party opposition. It's almost as if there is a spitefulness in the Platform: We don't care what you rank-n-file think, we're gonna ram this down your throat even if the GOP can make hay out of it.

25. I wanted confirmation that DU'ers would support OBAMA

over something like what was on this magazine. I hoped that would be the case, and that gun owners would also be offended by this magazine as blatantly anti-Obama.

While I am not a gun owner, my issues go far beyond one issue (even as a female) in my being a Democrat and supporting Obama.

It sounds like some people would vote for a REPUBLICAN on the gun issue alone? Let me just say this, you vote for a Republican and you get the WHOLE PACKAGE, not just one issue that you support.

I hope the mods can understand my point of view. I am not attacking gun owners, just promoting the WHOLE Democratic principles, and something which I found very ANTI-OBAMA. We MUST stick together to elect a DEMOCRAT, people.

29. is that a poor set up or serious question?

I haven't seen the issue, or read the rant. I don't plan on looking for it either. It is probably something I would expect them to scribble.

Even without a law, Mitt could result in an economic ban because of declining wages and broken unions. Of course Blair Mt re enactments would get the right behind gun bans, just like the right supported licensing schemes and bans in the south back in the day.

My FIL voted Democratic based on health care alone. For the most part, he was a fairly conservative guy.

OK we agree on two things, Florida sucks compared to NYC/Wyoming (depending on individual) and must stick together as Democrats.

40. I not sure why you are looking for "confirmation" in this Group...

Over and over again, the regular pro-2A folks here have expressed support for the Democratic candidates (including Obama). There is a lot of agitprop from controller/banners to the effect that we are "NRA/GOP supporters." It's almost daily, that crap is here. I guess it just goes to show that even liberals are subject to: If you repeat the lie long enough, it becomes the truth (did you check on that jury ruling in this thread? Why is it 5-1?).

BTW, my Dad, who was a life-long Republican, supported universal health care after his gall bladder operation blew up in the 50s. Such are single issues. He was a gun-owner, too, in an era which was not nearly so polarized around around guns. Frankly, anti-gunners MADE the modern NRA over a puffed-up "issue" that wasn't even mentioned in the Platform until well after the Zombies had charted all their major hits (1968).

Good to see your posts; I've been on a hiatus since March, and have a new screen name.

57. Free speech doesn't offend me.

56. I don't think anyone here indicated they would vote for Romney?

Is lack of offense = voting for Romney?

I'm not offended by that mag. I have a membership for access to a local gun range. Requirement to join. That magazine showed up, and I threw it in the trash with all the other garbage. I'm not offended by free speech. I'm just not interested in their particular flavor of it, so it goes in the garbage.

I'm voting for Obama, and so are most or all of the people in this sub-forum. Might be some conscientious objectors looking at progressive alternatives that are anti-war, and I can understand their position. That's fine.

49. We brought this on ourselves.

As long as our official platform calls for a new AWB and closing the gun show "loophole", we're at odds with groups like the NRA. Their response was the only thing that could have been expected, and it's completely consistent with the narrow scope of their mission.